/sci/ - Science & Math

I think a universe with backwards time before the big bang is much more likely

the big boot

>>15203573
Each digit of pi is not dependent on the prior digit. But events taking place on the timeline are. Also, pi isn't infinite in both directions. There is a beginning to it.

An infinite past makes no sense. Even if there is no perceivable end to time in the future, you can always bookend the present with the beginning and have a finite amount of time, so there will never be an infinite amount of it.

>>15203613
To put it in terms of logic:
In a deterministic system there must be a first cause.

>>15203573
>i know the entire history of the whole universe from the very firs instant and i can predict it's future too because of my omniscient knowledge of SCIENCE!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
without a fixed belief system its easy to fall into the trap of overestimating your own intelligence to the point that it verges on literal mental illness.

>>15203615
Something like that, but it's not a supernatural being.

>>15203573
>implying time

>>15203615
>in a deterministic system there must be a first cause
not if the chain of causality is a möbius loop

>>15203627
That violates the underlying axioms of determinism.

>>15203630
which are?

>>15203634
If you don't know, then what's the point of arguing?

>>15203627
On this loop, would the total entropy of the universe be constantly increasing and then decreasing? As in would it look like time was going backwards for half the, um, time?

>>15203652
the comment was somewhat flippant, but if entropy is only running one way along the loop, then it would seem to be running in the opposite direction on the alternate "side" of the loop (which is of course the same side given that it's a möbius loop).
>>15203642
boredom

>>15203615
>In a deterministic system there must be a first cause.

Says who? You?
This is the same argument as was already debunked in the OP. It's just using different terms.


>"you cannot have an infinite chain of events because you'd never reach the latest event"

You're still teleporting to negative infinity and using that as your invalid starting point of events. You introduce a contradiction as your very first move.

Explain WHY a deterministic system requires a First Cause. And do it without using negative infinity as a starting point.

>>15203689
>Says who? You?
The axioms of formal logic from which determinism was derived.

>>15203698
>axioms

right, so someone just decided it was true.

>>15203698
and which formal logic would that be?

>>15203702
>right, so someone just decided it was true.
Well yes, we define words with specific meanings so that ideas can be shared between people. That's how language works.

>>15203702
yeah but they used a greek word for it so you know it's legit

>>15203704
Consider reading a book if you're unsure about a subject.
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/54

>>15203716
lol. lmao.

>>15203711
But you understand what the word "axiom" means right? an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident

ie,
>someone just decided it was true

So your assertion
>In a deterministic system there must be a first cause

Is just that, an assertion. You've admitted that you have no supporting argument.

>"it follows from the axioms we made up" - you

>>15203573
>reddit poster tries to sound smart

If time / universe truly is infinite then you need to stop making this thread. I swear to got I've seen it infinite times already.

>>15203730
You can only argue for the chain of causality if you agree on the first principles from which that logic was derived. If you don't believe in them then it's pointless to say you're interested in the subject in the first place because you could be talking about anything. Your definitions have to match to have an argument.

>>15203758
i define my argument as true, and your argument as untrue.

now agree with my definitions or there's no point in arguing

>>15203766
Thank you for conceding.

>>15203766

i define my foot in your ass

>>15203573
The Big Bang is a white hole jizzing massenergy out it’s sphingularity and we’re all going to end up in a heat dead empty douche bag of a deflated universe smelling of queef outside the new universes that won’t have the right constants on the other side of our singularities that evaporated into a dull background radiation of a few nanokelvins almost indetectable in the distended roastie flaps of this space.

>>15203769
thank you for consneeding

>a deterministic system requires a first cause
>why?
>..b-because.. it JUST DOES OKAY??

>>15203800
It doesn’t if time is a closed loop type of thing.

>>15203800
>a deterministic system requires a first cause
>why?
>because the definition of a causal chain implies a first cause
>ok

>>15203804
>>because the definition of a causal chain implies a first cause
>definition
>implies

pathetic. Did you drop out of highschool in grade 9?

>what is chicken and egg causality

>>15203801
what is a closed loop as opposed to an open loop?

This universe is a monster of energy, without beginning or end; a fixed and brazen quantity o; energy which grows neither bigger nor smaller, which does not consume itself, but only alters its face; as a whole its bulk is immutable, it is a household without either losses or gains, but likewise without increase and without sources of revenue, surrounded by nonentity as by a frontier, it is nothing vague or wasteful, it does not stretch into infinity; but it is a definite quantum of energy located in limited space, and not in space which would be anywhere empty. It is rather energy everywhere, the play of forces and force-waves, at the same time one and many, agglomerating here and diminishing there, a sea of forces storming and raging in itself, for ever changing, for ever rolling back over in calculable ages to recurrence, with an ebb and flow of its forms, producing the most complicated things out of the most simple structures; producing the most ardent, most savage, and most contradictory things out of the quietest, most rigid, and most frozen material, and then returning from multifariousness to uniformity, from the play of contradictions back into the delight of consonance, saying yea unto itself, even in this homogeneity of its courses and ages; for ever blessing itself as something which recurs for all eternity,—a becoming which knows not satiety, or disgust, or weariness:—this, my Dionysian world of eternal self-creation, of eternal self-destruction, this mysterious world of twofold voluptuousness; this, my "Beyond Good and Evil" without aim, unless there is an aim in the bliss of the circle, without will, unless a ring must by nature keep goodwill to itself,—would you have a name for my world? A solution of all your riddles? Do ye also want a light, ye most concealed, strongest and most undaunted men of the blackest midnight?—This world is the Will to Power—and nothing else! And even ye yourselves are this will to power—and nothing besides!

>>15203815
With or without boundary

>>15203613
>Each digit of pi is not dependent on the prior digit.
Yes it is, that is how long division works, the digit before each digit will result in some carry over that affects the next digit.

> Also, pi isn't infinite in both directions.
Yes it is, there are just infinity 0s in one direction that are typically ignored for the sake of convenience.

>>15203618
Believing in constant inflation that can be traced back to a fixed big bang beginning is a fixed belief in a particular cosmological system.

>>15203630
No it doesn't, it still maintains a chain of cause and effect ala determinism.

>>15203716
So you are unsure of the answer to the question and need some broad book to appeal to instead without actually knowing which exact page or section of which exact book would actually answer the question? What was the point in reading that back if you can't even explain what you learned?

>>15204001
>So you are unsure of the answer to the question
I assume you meant that for >>15203704?

>>15203804
Then which chain is the first link in this chain link?

>>15203815
Pic is a closed loop, a spiral is an open loop.

>>15204024
It probably applies to both of you, but it was meant for you specifically since you are the one acting like you have read the book, but can't seem to explain what part of it is relevant to the discussion and still don't seem sure about which exact axiom you are referring to since you can't name it.

bump

>>15203573
Why do you create a thread to fight against a strawman literally no sane human has even uttered? This isn't the philosophy board.

>>15205090
are you retarded?

>>15203993
>Yes it is, that is how long division works
That's how that particular way to calculate pi works, but not how the number exists on its own.

You can find the nth digit of pi without doing long division at all.

> there are just infinity 0s in one direction
lmao

>>15203679
If it's the same side, ie it's "progressing forward" in time and never going backward in time, then where is the energy coming from to keep it going?

>>15203689
>Explain WHY a deterministic system requires a First Cause.
Entropy. When event a causes event b, time moves forward and the total entropy of the universe increases. Energy is limited and at some point it will be so spread out that it won't be able to "do" anything. If there is a beginning with a low entropy state that moves toward a higher entropy state, you have what looks like our current universe. I don't see how it can go in a cycle without some kind of "random" (uncaused) event to kick it off again.

>>15204031
>Then which chain is the first link in this chain link?
Whichever one has the lowest entropy.

>>15205279
roger penrose says the universe is cyclical so get rekt
https://youtu.be/K_FUlo8BF9Y?t=457

But where did the nothing come from?

>>15205306
nothing came from nowhere, duh

>>15205300
Can you sum up his position so I don't have to sit watch this whole video right now?

I can see a cyclical universe if after heat death, the entropy is maximized and space has expanded to the point that no point in space can see past its event horizon to be able to "see" even a single photon. If you were to pick a random spot in the universe it would look like nothing but vacuum. Time has essentially stopped. Now we're sitting around in a universe "waiting" (except time isn't passing really) until the next "random" (uncaused) event happens and you have another universe expand from a very low entropy state.

>>15205300
Who cares what some pseud says?

>>15205349
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

>>15205372
Wow. That kinda sounds like what I just said. Although I don't think one of his new aeons requires a "random" (uncaused) event to begin. It seems to have been caused deterministically by a previous aeon.

It also doesn't seem to imply that this cycle never had a beginning. The wiki article doesn't explain how this cycle just "always existed."

>>15205262
>"progressing forward" in time and never going backward in time
it's only never going backward if you're viewing the entire loop from the outside. from any perspective on the loop (i.e., within the universe) it would be going local-backwards, but on the part of the loop which you can't observe.
>where is the energy coming from to keep it going?
i'm obviously not a physicist but i'll venture a guess that "energy from the part of the loop which we can't observe" corresponds to dark energy.

>>15205502
>It also doesn't seem to imply that this cycle never had a beginning. The wiki article doesn't explain how this cycle just "always existed."
nta - could be that it does have a beginning and an end, but at some point before we reach the end someone figures out how to jostle the chain just right to hook the end onto the beginning

>>15205509
was meant for >>15205445

>>15205509
also it may not even be the end that gets hooked onto the beginning. it may be necessary to trim some of the end off of the chain to make a hook which can grab onto the beginning - which would mean that the cycle wouldn't be infinite

>>15205513
>which would mean that the cycle wouldn't be infinite
or at least is potentially if not necessarily finite

>>15205502
What differentiates the future from the past is an increase in entropy. The future can't look the same as the past in that regard. When you loop back around to the same point on the Mobius strip, that point has to look the same as it did the last time you were there. Otherwise you're on some sort of perpetual motion machine.

>>15205544
>What differentiates the future from the past is an increase in entropy
see>>15205513
>>15205514
if you need to shear a link off of the end of the chain in order to hook it back onto the beginning of the chain to complete each cycle, then there's a net gain in entropy each cycle.

big bang

>>15203630
yeah determinism is retarded and leads to inflexible beliefs and one-dimensional mechanical thinking that hampers science. we don't need such faith to make provisional causal observations.

What would it actually mean if the universe weren't infinite in time? Even hypothetically, what could that actually look like? What is a time-finite reality?

Additionally, many very intelligent physicists believe time may possibly be an emergent phenomenon. How does that play into all of this? What would it mean if time and space were both emergent?

I know we probably won't have definitive answers to these questions even in 300 years (though perhaps it isn't impossible), but what is the actual landscape of possibilities?

>>15206649
Time is an illusion for 3-dimensional beings. Our movement creates the perception of time, but imagine if you will that every particle in the universe stopped moving, and stayed like that. Would some clock continue to tick? Intuitively we say yes, but what actual evidence is there of a ticking clock? If there is no movement, then there is no change, and if there is no change there is no perception of time.

Therefore "time" only "flows" when the state of the 3rd dimension changes.

>>15203573
>It's like arguing against the infinity pi
No, it isn't. We are talking about the PHYSICAL world, not pi. pi is not a physical object. We are talking about PHYSICAL finitude. Not the finitude of abstract objects in minds. You can't go back BEFORE the booting up as far as defined values of space (pixels) or time (cycles). There are NO infinities in the physical world. No analyticity, no continuousness, no infinities of anytype. There are only these things as part of math models in the MINDS of observers.

>>15203605
yes. The booting up. All consciousness based virtual (informational) realities begin with an influx of information from out of 'nowhere' from the point of view of those immersed in the reality, be it a dream, a daydream, or the waking 'physical' reality/universe.

>>15206801
>Time is an illusion for 3-dimensional beings
Why are some beings dead and some alive? No, time is real. Some people are alive while others are dead. You are getting thrown off by the 5th one down in pic related. Time slows in certain processing nodes because of processing load. Imagine a player in a massively multiplayer online game playing in a region of the game with more intensive complexity than the others playing the game. His gameplay RELATIVE to the others in the virtual world slows down in frame rate. This doesn't mean that there is not an outer more fundamental time or the time of a consciousness is relative. Consciousnesses have a finite number of cycles (time) that they can interface with a particular avatar (body). And the universe booted up with regard to it's time (cycles) and space (pixels).